Pages

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Recently,
in a comics-related Facebook group I participate in, there was a
discussion about Marvel and DC not taking chances or risks with their
publications. This sparked a fairly long discussion where many people
listed things they believed were examples of risk-taking, both
current, such as DC's New 52, and past, Watchmen being named.
I wanted to post several comments, but much of the conversation had
gone by before I read any of it. The more I read, the more thoughts
and ideas on the topic I had, more than there would have been room
for on the thread.

Hence
this blog entry.

It
seemed to me that the entire conversation had a narrow focus that
only applied to already established comics fans. I also realize that
I disagree with many of the things that were stated in the
discussion. I don't want to single any of my friends out in a “NO,
You're Wrong!” kind of way. This is a big topic and there are lots
of ways of looking at it. So, I apologize if it seems like I'm
bashing anything anyone said. These are my thoughts and I welcome
discussion on the topic.

I
think, at the heart of this discussion, is the age-old question all
diehard comics fans ask; How can we get more people to read comics?
We love them so much, why can't other people? What can we do, as
individual fans and as an industry, to turn more people on to the
medium we love?

One
of the answers is the belief that if the companies took more risks
they would attract more readers. While I agree with this in principle
there is a problem with the definition of what “more risks”
actually means.

DC's
New 52 was a risk, and in the short term it has paid off, for DC and
for comics retailers (and for some fans, depending on who you talk
to). But, it was a risk within the bounds of the established comics
fan base. The real risk was alienating already established fans. As
someone who spends a lot of time on the retail side of the comics
counter, what I've seen is renewed interest on the part of lapsed
fans. Some old faces have come back. Sales have been good, but only
to people who already read, or have read, comics. I have not seen
hordes of uninitiated new readers storming the castle for the new
issue of Ravagers. Or Batman for that matter. The convoluted and
overlapping continuities still prevent new readers from embracing
comics.

The
introduction of gay characters, whether it is the Golden Age Green
Lantern or a continuation of the Northstar storyline are not
risk-taking moves. There have been prominent gay characters for
years. I recently read an article in an issue of Amazing Heroes
from 1987 that focused on gay characters in comics. This has been
true at both Marvel and DC for a long time, but even more so in
independent books. A significant portion of the entire cast of Love
& Rockets have engaged in various alternative sexualities for
three decades now. But that's not news, because outside of comics no
one knows what Love & Rockets is. For that matter, lots of
people within comics have never read it to know how naturally the
topic has been part of that series since the beginning (and that's
part of this whole issue I'm going to come back to). Gay characters
are showing up in the news right now because it is part of our
national conversation, and while I'm all for diversity, I don't see
this as particularly risky. It will attract attention for a day or
so, a few extra people will buy the comics because of the press, most
in the mistaken belief that “someday this will be worth something!”
and then never come back. It doesn't produce new, regular readers.

Before
Watchmen is not a risk-taking venture, nor does it speak to new
readers. The whole Alan Moore/creator's rights issue aside, this
project only speaks to established fans. It is capitalizing on an
old, successful product and capitalizing on the controversy this will
stir within the comics industry. Yes, we sold a ton of copies of the
Watchmen TP when the movie came out. That was because it was a
self-contained story with a beginning, middle and end for $19.99. I
can probably count the number of regular, returning readers this
produced on one hand. A very small percentage of people who saw the
movie and bought the TP will even know Before Watchmen exists,
and even if they are interested it will cost them $135.66 (plus tax
in some states), to read the whole thing. How many casual fans of the
movie do you think are going to shell that out?

Which
leads me to the mistaken belief that the success of comic book
characters on the big screen translates into increased sales at the
retail level. With rare exceptions, they don't. Watchmen did,
for the reasons stated above. Scott Pilgrim did for pretty
much the same reasons. But, given the enormous success of The
Avengers movie, those hordes of new customers aren't showing up
looking for comics. I'm not sure what I would show them if they did.
None of the current Avengers books resemble the movie. They
are all part of ongoing, convoluted continuities that are difficult
for the long-term reader to follow, let alone a newcomer. What
Avengers graphic novel would you recommend to a new reader who
loved the movie? Try to keep in mind that this person doesn't have
the background you do. I love Avengers Forever, but it would
be incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Even when someone new has an
interest there are very few good jumping on places for them. Their
first attempt at reading comics makes them feel stupid and like an
outsider to an exclusive club. They are unlikely to come back.

And
that's one of the main problems with Marvel and DC. They continue to
write stories that are aimed at a small and ever-dwindling fan base.
Their stories are so intertextual and dependent on prior knowledge as
to be impenetrable to new readers. The only risk-taking that takes
place is changes to characters only a few people care about in the
first place. This doesn't target new readers.

Which,
after a lot of rambling, brings me to the main point of this article.
What do we mean when we say we want more people to read comics? Do
we, as readers and consumers, love comics? Or do we love superheroes?
I ask this as someone who loves both. In my experience, the vast
majority of people out there in the wider world, the people who
consider themselves to be readers, those who buy books, the people we
as an industry should be courting, simply don't give a shit about
superheroes, Marvel or DC. It's harsh to say that about something we
all love, but it's the truth. Oh, they'll go see the movies and enjoy
them, but one look at a superhero, with the capes and tights and all
of the other tropes we all accept as part of the genre, and they will
dismiss it. It has been true for a long time that most people see the
superhero as parody, and simply can't take it seriously as a genre.
Whether it's true or not is immaterial. On any given day you can see
superhero parodies on TV and billboards and magazines, advertising
plumbing and pizza and anything else you can think of. Our culture
does not take the superhero seriously, even though we believe
it should. I say all of this as a fan of the genre who believes there
are great superhero stories out there and that there can be more. But
if potential readers, many of whom already have a negative
connotation to the subject, are only exposed to Marvel and DC
continuity they are never going to become regular readers of comics.
As long as comics as a whole are perceived to be nothing but
superheroes then we still have a long uphill battle ahead of us.

The
problem with Marvel and DC is that they don't think of themselves as
major publishers. They are owned and backed by Disney and Warner
Brothers respectively, with huge budgets and fingers in multinational
publishing interests. But Marvel and DC continue to create content
like they were a small press fanzine aimed at a loyal but miniscule
market. They simply don't entertain the idea of publishing anything
that isn't part of their respective universes (Vertigo, and to a
lesser extent Icon, excepted).

Neither
of them would have published Robert Kirkman's Walking Dead,
because it wasn't part of their universe. If they did (under Vertigo,
at best), they probably wouldn't have offered the same kind of rights
Image did. Walking Dead is obviously a major success. We
regularly sell more copies of the individual issues of it than we do
of a huge number of Marvel or DC books. The sales of TP collections
go beyond that. Walking Dead isn't even that far removed from the
kinds of genres traditionally dealt with in comics, but probably
still not something they would have taken a chance on. This is a
failure of imagination and foresight on the part of the Big Two.

Imagine
if you will, a major book publisher, Random House or Penguin Putnam
for example, in an effort to combat dwindling sales and woo new
readers, decided to only publish Westerns. There is a small but loyal
audience, after all. Now imagine that they decide to make all of
their new Western books inter-related and ask their authors to do
crossovers and continuing stories so that readers can't get an actual
complete story without reading several or all of the books in the
line. It's an absurd thought and one that is obviously doomed to
failure, but that's the exact model Marvel and DC use.

And
we wonder why more people don't read comics.

To
truly be risk-takers Marvel and DC need to start thinking of
themselves as actual, major, mainstream publishers. They need to
offer complete graphic novels of a wide variety of genres that can
appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. They then need to put
the power of their corporate backers into advertising these books at
the same level they market everything else. Ads in Entertainment
Weekly, on TV, wherever. They need to launch a campaign that lets
people know that comics aren't what everyone assumes they are.

Smaller
publishers are already doing this, but they don't have the financial
clout to make much of an impact. I was thrilled to see Ed Piskor's
upcoming graphic novel Wizzywig be part of a two-page spread
in Rolling Stone, being spoken of in the same vein as upcoming
novels and music. Ed has produced a comic that appeals to a
demographic no other comic has approached, and as a result he is
finding an audience that goes way outside the usual comics consumer.
Books like his will do more to reach out to new readers and new
comics fans than all the crossover events and gay superheroes put
together. But there needs to be more content available to keep these
potential new readers. Will the fans of Wizzywig become fans of the
superhero genre? Probably not. So? Do we love comics, or do we love
superheroes?

The
Big Two need to launch publishing branches where they can be known
for publishing comics that appeal to a wider audience: different
genres, different creators with different storytelling and art
styles. That would be an actual risk on their part, that handled
correctly would produce huge dividends, not only financially but for
the art form.

But
we, as fans, can't expect them to take risks if we're not willing to.
When was the last time any of you, those of you who believe you are
fans of comics, taken a risk at reading anything other than the
comics you already read? Yes, I'm calling you out. Don't get me
wrong... as a reader, of comics and books, not everything is going to
appeal to you. There are genres that simply aren't my thing, no
matter how well-reviewed or written something is. That's okay. But if
we want Comics with a capital C, Comics as a storytelling medium, to
thrive, we have to support the idea that comics can be more than what
Marvel and DC offer. Writer Jeff Lemire is receiving tons of
accolades for his new Animal Man series in the New 52 for very
good reasons. If you like that book, have you tried his Vertigo book
Sweet Tooth? Have you read Essex County, (his best work
in my opinion)? Do you even know what Essex County is? Have
you looked at Craig Thompson's Habibi, probably the best
single graphic novel of 2011 in terms of story, art and taking full
advantage of comics as a storytelling medium? How about Bottomless
Belly Button by Dash Shaw, for all the same reasons in 2009? Are
you going to be interested in what Ed Piskor is doing in Wizzywig
when we have him in the store to do a signing, or are you going to
pass it by because it doesn't have Wolverine in it?

I'm
not even trying to say you should read all of this, or that given
your specific tastes that you would like it if you did. But we will
never answer the question of why more people don't read comics until
we are able to address exactly what we mean by that. I've stated my
reasons why I think the potential audience for comics, those people
out there who are voracious readers but don't care for superheroes,
don't take us seriously. So, when you're talking to your friends who
don't read comics, what are you prepared to recommend? Stuff they
will never have an interest in, no matter how good we fans think it
is, or a graphic novel more in line with their particular tastes.

Marvel
and DC need to take more risks, no question there. So do readers.